I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Flames, January 23, 2011

Canucks 3 - Flames 4 (SO)

It's a bummer that, for the second time in as many games, the Canucks had to fall in a shootout. That said, I'm hoping that the fans are smart enough to differentiate between the sluggish team that barely managed a point versus San Jose on Thursday night, and tonight's team, which improved as the game went on and controlled the run of play for much of the third period versus the Flames. Yes, Vancouver, your team only skated away with one point, and yes, they've now lost 5 of 6, but if you were looking for improvement, it was there tonight. Or, at least I felt it was when I watched this game:

• You'll hear the media people saying that the Canucks have dropped 5 of 6, but it's somewhat sensationalistic and irresponsible to report it this way when only 1 of the 5 losses was in regulation. They've gotten six points in their last six games, which is the same amount of points they'd have collected by going 3 and 3. The next time someone tells you the Canucks are spiraling, respond by pointing out they're actually playing .500 hockey. It's still worth a mutter, as this team should be better than .500, but it's not worth a panic, as they're not worse than .500, either. Not to mention they were the only of the top three NHL teams to get a point today. Detroit and Philadelphia--the two teams with whom they're jostling at the top of the league--lost in regulation.

• The real big story, I guess, is the odd decision from the NHL war room to call Alex Tanguay's shootout attempt a goal. Vancouver fans are right to be outraged. The call goes against the NHL's rule for reviewable goals, which stipulates that the puck has to be visibly across the goal line in order to overturn an official's no-goal call. In this case, the puck was lost in Luongo's pads, and there was no way to see it cross the line. Though it obviously did, by the letter of the law, the referee's no-goal call should have stood, due to inconclusive footage. Puzzlingly, the NHL used their heads and determined that, if Luongo was in the net, so was the puck. More than anything, it's odd that they decided tonight was the night to go against the letter of the law and utilize common sense. Since when do they do that? Jason Botchford dug up three distinct instances where the War Room called this the other way, and I think that's the infuriating thing here: it's not consistent with how they've been handling this situation in the past. Plus, where was this approach when the "Intent to Blow" controversy started?

• Meh. This game really shouldn't have even gone to the shootout, anyway. The Canucks' power play, usually so good, has now thoroughly failed the team in two consecutive games and dropped to third in the NHL. Identical to last night, the team went 0-for-5 a man up, including, again, an important 4-on-3 in overtime. The unit's had a few short droughts this season, but they need to get this fixed right away. This drought has effectively cost the team two points in the last three days.

• In the first period, Kevin Bieksa took a massive blow to the eye from Tom Kostopoulos, which turned out to be a massive blow to the whole Canucks team when Bieksa didn't return. Word is he's not concussed (yea!), but one of his eyes is swollen completely shut (nay!).

• Do you remember, back in November, when the Canucks' defense was in total disarray? It got so bad that Vigneault put his foot down, then made his top two pairings and committed himself to leaving them together for better or for worse. It's been two months since then, and we've taken for granted the defensive stability that grew out of his decision. It was apparent after the loss of Bieksa threw everything back into disarray. Ehrhoff, Edler, and Hamhuis all wound up playing over twenty-six minutes, but their ice time and shifts didn't make much sense and they didn't synchronize in the slightest. Meanwhile, Keith Ballard still didn't crack twenty minutes, and Chris Tanev's minutes actually decreased from the last game.

• Worse, nobody was ready or rested to join their regular units on the powerplay, which meant seeing Hamhuis and Samuelsson on the top unit, as well as Ehrhoff and Edler with the hapless second unit. It was a waste of a powerplay. I want to say Vigneault should have used a timeout to rest Ehrhoff and Edler to join their regular forwards, but Christian Ehrhoff played a game-high thirty-three minutes tonight; Vigneault clearly forgot rest was an option for him.

• I know Manny Malhotra is one of the forwards mired in a pretty remarkable scoring slump, but he had a great game tonight. Alternate Captain Mal was all over the ice defensively, he won 13 of 22 faceoffs, and he had 5 blocked shots--a game-high.

• Raffi Torres, on the other hand, had another subpar outing, and this time he earned himself a benching. Torres only played 5:43 tonight, only thirty-seven seconds more than Kevin Bieksa. The intermission peewee teams had more icetime.

• Mason Raymond had a few grade A chances, but he's still fighting the puck. Of all the slumping forwards, he's the one that concerns me the most. The Canucks are really thin on the wing if he's not an effective weapon.

• The Sedin line was solid and dangerous again tonight, as Daniel and Henrik both collected a point. However, the real stars of their line were Alex Burrows, who had two assists and was on the ice for all three Canuck goals, and Alex Edler, who was also on the ice for all three goals, and scored two of them himself. The first goal, above, came on a beautiful one-timed snap shot. The second goal came after Jay Bouwmeester slewfooted his goaltender in an ill-advised attempt to distract Alex Burrows.

• A brief word on Daniel Sedin's crosscheck to the back of Mark Giordano: awesome. I recognize that he took a penalty for it, but good on him for responding after the referees let the Flames brutalize the twins all night. Case in point: when "Macho Man" Cory Sarich drove a flying elbow into Henrik Sedin's face. I understand the referees want to let the teams play, but WWE finishing moves are a bit much.

• Ryan Kesler played a surreal game tonight. He seems to have willed his thumb back to health, as he took an unreal 30 faceoffs and won 19 of them. He scored a shorthanded goal that tied the game in the third period. He shadowed Jarome Iginla all night and kept the all-star forward off the scoring sheet. Also, during the second intermission, he flew into outer space and punched a comet into the sun.

• Speaking of punching, the Flames' third goal was a direct result of Roberto Luongo's aggravating tendency to punch the puck instead of catching it cleanly. Somebody needs to remind him he's supposed to catch the puck, not kill it. He's the Rooster Cogburn of goalies.

• Weirdest Kevin Weekes statement: "This is why Tambellini hasn't scored--he shoots lasers." I assume he meant to say that Tambellini isn't using his great shot enough, but it sounded like he was ragging on him for literally shooting lasers. And, as everybody knows, lasers are just fine, unless the walls are covered with mirrors.

• And finally, the Canucks only had 15 hits tonight. Unacceptable. Robbie Williams has more hits, and he sucks.

All-Star Alternate Captain Can Thank Sedins

Ryan Kesler has been named an alternate captain for the 2011 All-Star Game in Raleigh, North Carolina, as have Mike Green of the Washington Capitals, Patrick Kane of the Chicago Blackhawks, and Martin St. Louis of the Tampa Bay Lightning. Kesler and Green will join Team Staal, with Kane and St. Louis joining Team Lidstrom.

It would be nice to say that Kesler received the recognition for his stellar season as he's only two goals away from setting a career high, with 35 games left to play, but the fact that Mike Green and Patrick Kane were also named alternate captains despite having middling seasons. An argument could be made for name recognition, as Kesler and Kane were stars for Team USA in the Olympics and have adorned the covers of video games, but both Green and St. Louis were left off Team Canada and likely don't spark much recognition from the casual sports fan that the All-Star Game targets.

Instead, I think it's clear that he and the other alternates were picked not for their own star-power, but for the star-power of their teammates. Green and St. Louis are teammates with two of the biggest stars in the NHL and, with Sidney Crosby unlikely to play, the two players most likely to get picked first and second overall in the draft: Alex Ovechkin and Steven Stamkos. By placing Green and St. Louis on opposite sides, a layer of intrigue is added to the first overall pick: will they lobby for their teammate or will they want to play against them?

Kesler and Kane are the third-leading scorers on their teams. This isn't a coincidence. Ahead of Kesler are the Sedins and ahead of Kane are Patrick Sharp and Jonathan Toews. All four of those players are in the All-Star Game and are likely to be high picks. Daniel and Henrik are miles ahead of Sharp and Toews in scoring, so it will be interesting to see if Kane sets aside his animosity towards the Canucks to lobby for a Sedin ahead of his own teammates. Which of the Sedins will get picked first and will Ryan Kesler lobby for one ahead of the other? With this selection of alternate captains, these decisions just got a little bit more interesting.

Four Reasons the Coach's Challenge is a Stupid Idea

Think video review would have fixed some of these bad calls? Look how many of these miscalls were the result of video review.

Miscalls happen in hockey. Referees are human, players are jerks, and few calls are an exact science. It's pretty much a Canadian tradition to complain about officiating (ask me about the Canucks-Kings series last year), but in the long run, things tend to even out, and the human factor is a part of the game. We're not all happy with officiating, but I thought we were at least happy to be unhappy some of the time.

Apparently not. Dale Tallon's proposal for a "coach's challenge" is gaining traction, according to TSN's Darren Dreger. That disturbs me.

I'll admit that the idea could fix a problem with hockey that's been a source of much frustration for as long as the game's been around. But it won't. It'll be held back by one small but vital complication:

It's a stupid idea.

Since when is "It works in the NFL" a selling point? The NFL plays a game in which, if a player grabs another player's mask, the offending team's moved back a number of yards. In the NHL, if a player takes exception to another player's behavior, they'll get into a fistfight right there on the ice. And they'll be back on the ice five minutes later. They can get into multiple fistfights in the same game. Penalties and infractions could not be more different for the two sports. No analogy between the two sports is a good selling point for a rule change.

Still, that's not a reason it wouldn't work. Here are four reasons it's a stupid idea:

Limits Referee's Ability to Manage Play

The referee's job is not to call every penalty. Something happens on every other shift that's technically a penalty. Some miscalls are more egregious than others, but in general, each team gets the same amount of leeway. Watch any broadcast and you will hear the words "no call" or "play continues" several times. That's just the way it goes. Referees often just let the teams play.

We don't dislike this. We appreciate the refs who "put the whistles away in the third." Who wants to see their team blow a two-goal lead in the third thanks to some questionable penalties? Who wants to see their team's comeback chance quashed by a momentum-changing penalty?

And the major miscalls, the ones players argue about, are usually evened out. Why do you think players complain to the referees? The ref isn't going to retroactively make a call on a play he missed. Players do it because refs often even it out. Miss an elbow to Kesler's head? Okay, they'll probably miss Edler hauling someone down, as well. Or maybe they'll call a hook they normally wouldn't. Most of the good referees make it work somehow.

What does the coach's challenge do to all this? Well, for starters, it drastically increases the third-period penalties that no one wants. The best use of a coach's challenge will be to overturn a goal, so coaches are unlikely to use it just to get a power play in the first period. Coaches will try to save it for a goal. If they can't get that chance, they'll use it late in the third period to get a power play. Refs "miss" all sorts of infractions in the third, so both coaches will have an opportunity for a late-game power play. That takes power right out of the hands of the referees.

Plus, it makes them look bad, and it's likely they'll just start calling more. Every successful coach's challenge is going to be considered a mistake by the referee, as far as someone's concerned. The refs' only defense is to make the calls themselves. Who wants that? How many unbiased hockey fans just want more penalties called every game, especially in the third? Those fans who complain about every miscall should be careful what they wish for. If this coach's challenge is adopted, they may soon be shouting "Let them PLAY!"

Disallowed Goals Suck

They do. Fans feel cheated, and teams feel frustrated. Sure, you're glad when a goal against your team is disallowed. You're upset when a goal against your team that seems questionable stands up to review. But all loyalties aside, disallowed goals suck, especially when they're disallowed on a technicality. The goaltender dove and drew an interference call. A player nudged another one ten feet away from the goal. Here's a favorite: the referee was reaching for the whistle. Everything just feels so dirty.

If you can only use a coach's challenge once per game, the best place to use it is to disallow a goal. A coach will give his team every chance to win, and if that means finding some technicality on which to challenge, so be it. You think your team scored a goal? They knocked the puck down with a high-stick 30 seconds beforehand, and the play should have been dead. Or, completely unrelated to the goal, someone was interfered with. Minor goaltender interference, a bit of roughing in front of the net, maybe someone got cross-checked... it all boils down to the same thing. More disallowed goals, and of the kind that really turns the stomach.

Sure, there are egregious miscalls that make us mad. That's why the proposal is gaining some traction. But the big mistakes are the exception, not the rule. If you think the coach isn't going to try to find a way to get a goal back, you haven't been paying attention. If the coach's challenge is adopted, every goal that can be disallowed based on a technicality, will be. And that sucks.

Video Review Takes Forever

Sometimes we're sitting around waiting for a full five minutes or more, waiting for the guys in Toronto to be absolutely sure there was a goal. Talk about boring. Talk about a momentum killer. You can't always predict how long they'll take, either, so it's not always safe to go grab another beverage. Video review sucks.

We put up with it because it happens when there are goals. Goals are important, and no team in the NHL averages 4 a game. It doesn't happen often, and for that reason, we understand that the league has to get it right. Fine. Whatever. I'll sit through your five minutes of staring at one or two frames to see if the puck crossed the line, or to see where the puck hit a stick, or whatever.

But don't you dare bring these show-stopping, buzz-killing, momentum-draining snorefests in on non goal-related matters. Did Edler really hold Kopitar up? I don't know. I don't care anymore. Yeah it was a close call, but in the time we've spent waiting for Toronto to decide, the Canucks could have killed off the penalty. And scored a goal. And Henrik could have taken another one.

As I pointed out above, these challenges, when not used to disallow goals for cheap reasons, will probably be saved for late in the third period. In any close game, this is the most exciting part. Know what the most exciting part of the game needs? Five-minute stops in play to decide whether Burrows was pushed or was diving.

Since When Is Video Review Infallible?

Seriously, it's like people all of a sudden have confidence in Gary Bettman and the Toronto front office. It's like they never ever get it wrong. Even this week, we have a clear instance of the NHL front office completely botching a call.

The people doing the video review for the NHL are human, and they make mistakes. They make mistakes all the time. Who expects that adding them to the mix more often is going to make things better? If anything, it means they'll just take longer to be wrong. Know what'll make a bad call less frustrating? Waiting five minutes for it.

The intention behind discussion of a coach's challenge rule is pure enough. GM's are frustrated when the wrong call is made on the ice. They want the game to be better. Still, when the proposal to even discuss a coach's challenge was shot down in November, it was the right call. While it's easy to be mad at one, specific instance where your team gets cheated out of a goal or a power play, perspective shows those instances are nothing compared to the damage such a rule change could do to the game. The NHL exists to entertain fans, and a rule change that makes the game less watchable is always going to be a bad idea.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs Sharks, January 20, 2010

Canucks 1 - 2 Sharks

Before we go any further, a brief dissertation on the first game back from a road trip: we saw, in The Game That Shall Not Be Named, and in the wise words of the team's sleep doctor, that the first game back from a road trip often yields a team at the peak of their exhaustion. In fact, while some expect the game to be renewed with energy, the game is usually more an extension of the trip that just ended than the first game after it. Take a look at the Canucks' schedule after their last five-game road trip: after petering out on the road, they came back and dropped games on back-to-back nights versus Chicago and Phoenix. That's because they had yet to have any home rest. Then, when they finally got it, they recuperated and began the jaw-dropping streak that is only now coming to an end.

All of this is to say that the team we saw last night could have played much, much worse, and we can reasonably expect the team that shows up Saturday night to be much, much better (and I'm sure it won't hurt that they're playing Calgary). Anyway, I watched this game:

• I should say I'm not offering this as an excuse; I'm simply making the point that the Canucks deserve more credit for taking points from their last two games than they're getting. That's what you have to do in the current NHL--get points when you're outplayed. The Canucks have done it twice in a row and it deserves, at the very least, a golf clap.
  

• In the last game, I said that, while the Canucks were playing without rest, Roberto Luongo had seen plenty of it. Superstar goalie that he is, he needed to bail out his sleepy team. If you recall, in Denver, he didn't, but last night he did. While the Canucks were a little sounder defensively, they were still giving up shots all over the place: 46 in total, 25 of those in the second period alone. Thankfully, Roberto Luongo stopped all but one, and without his strong play, the Canucks don't get this one to overtime. He made some stellar saves, too, like getting the cheater of his glove on Joe Thornton's breakaway wrister. His rebound control was excellent as well--he was smothering the puck all night. Not since Othello killed Desdemona in her bed have I seen such thorough smothering.

• The funny thing about the shot count is that it didn't tell the whole story. San Jose had most of the shots in the second period, but they really didn't dominate the way it appears they did on the stat sheet. The Sedins had a litany of extended shifts in the offensive zone that didn't always yield shots, but did a good job of stalling San Jose's attack for long stretches.
  

• Man, were the Sedins good. While they only produced one goal on the night (the pretty one, above), they lived inside San Jose's blue line most of the evening. They had a ton of chances and a ton of shots. Line you thought you'd never hear: Henrik Sedin had a game-high seven shots. In fact, he and Daniel combined for 13, over a third of Vancouver's shot total. Tony Gallagher often complains that the Sedins regularly put up two points apiece but don't play consistently dominant games. Last evening, they did the opposite. You just got served, Tony.

• Alex Burrows had a decent game too, but the poor guy was thoroughly manhandled every time he went to the net. I didn't think you could do that. Apparently you can.

• The shootout remains a stupid way to decide a hockey game. May I suggest, instead, two mouse traps and one mouse.
  

• So it turns out those moronic bits where John Garrett talks about snack foods he likes are planned. During a stoppage in play, Dan Murphy introduced the featured product of the night: Quaker Crispy Minis. This was followed by about seven seconds of dead air, as John Shorthouse waited for Garrett to say how much he likes to eat them. Instead, Garrett briefly forgot he existed, and Shorty had to prompt him. I've long felt Garrett watches the games from behind a sleep mask, but in this case, he was genuinely asleep on the job.
  

• I was briefly puzzled by Sergei Shirokov's third-period benching, but on second glance, it makes sense. First, Shirokov was playing overly flashy--twice he cut to the inside of the ice instead of putting a shot on goal with traffic heading to the net, and both times waited too long and wound up accomplishing nothing. Second, he wasn't winning his puck battles. Until Vigneault reunited Raymond, Kesler, and Samuelsson, the second line wasn't getting any sustained offensive pressure at all, and much of that had to do with Shirokov's play. He's still good, though. Hopefully he remains with the team and adjusts his play accordingly.

• Speaking of Samuelsson, it was nice to see Angry Samuelsson return. While fighting for a puck along the boards, he took a check from Jason Demers, and rather than not taking a stupid retaliatory penalty, he turned around and punched Demers in the head. Way to go. But, as detrimental as Angry Samuelsson can be sometimes, he plays better when he's like this, so this might be a good sign.

• With another subpar night in the faceoff circle, it's clear that Ryan Kesler's thumb is still bothering him. He's not Wolverine (as far as I know), so he might need rest or treatment or something. I'm concerned that eventually it's going to turn completely blue like the band in that Daft Punk movie, then fall off. You need your thumb to flip coins. How will Kesler ever decide between two things?
  

• Dan Hamhuis had a fabulous game with an assist to go with four blocked shots and three takeaways. You don't always notice him, but he always seems to be in the right place. This is excepting that one shift where he led a botched rush and found himself two zones away from Joe Thornton's breakaway. I haven't seen a guy this out of position since my wedding night. I did a lot of guessing.
  

• Tanner Glass fought Jamal Mayers, whose name, if slightly mispronounced, rhymes with bears. Coincidence? No. There's no connection whatsoever.
  

• Christian Ehrhoff had four blocked shots and an assist. Unfortunately, the goal on which he assisted was scored by Logan Couture. You can't make a play like that in front of the best player on the Sharks, or you'll get burned. But cut Ehrhoff some slack--I'm sure, like most of us, he couldn't believe that, on a team with four Olympians, rookie Logan Couture is their best player. It's not a good thing.

• Had the Vancouver power play been as effective last night as it was on Tuesday, the Canucks might have won this game going away. Unfortunately, it was drier than Stephen Lynch and not nearly as enjoyable to watch. They went 0-for-5 on the night, including an overtime 4-on-3 that probably should have been automatic.
  

• And finally (and most importantly), it was good to see Kyle Wellwood back, and you can tell that he's ecstatic. He was smiling from ear to ear all night. We love Welly here at PITB, so this meant we were smiling from ear to ear all night. Seriously, I smiled so hard my hair parted like the grinch, which is impressive, because I'm bald.

Three Things That Happen When You're Good

The Canucks have been good for awhile now, and I think I speak for everyone when I say this is relatively novel territory. It's not usually like this. I'm not used to caring very little how the other Northwest teams fared on a night-to-night basis, or clicking "League" instead of "Division" when I look at the standings. I'm not used to so many amusing quotes coming from such a happy dressing room. I'm definitely not used to hearing fans act reasonable about losses because they know the team is better than one bad game. It's strange.

But, as an amateur sociologist, it's also an opportunity for anecdotal observation. Here are three things I've observed, as a fan of a good team:

Your Prospects Look Pretty Impressive

So far, this season, we've seen some remarkable performances from Cory Schneider, as well as impressive debuts from Sergei Shirokov and Chris Tanev. We've seen first-ever NHL goals from Shirokov, Alex Bolduc, and Mario Bliznak. But, before you start praising the Canucks for the depth of their prospect pool, realize that it's a lot easier to look good when you're playing for a good team. This is no disrespect to these kids, who have shown NHL ability, but they couldn't have asked for a better situation.

The motivation to succeed is greater. They're surrounded by winning, and like the teams that test their ability to play against the best, these prospects, too, can test their ability to play with the best.

Expectations are lower as well. Unlike poor Nazem "Luke Skywalker" Kadri, for instance, who looks like a failure because he wasn't ready to save a team for whom he was the only hope, the Canucks' kids have merely been asked to play to their abilities. Rather than losing confidence because they can't meet impossible expectations, they can gain confidence because management believed they could fit on a talented team. It's one thing to make a bad team--someone had to. It's quite another to make a good, deep team that had other options.

People Rush to Take the Credit

Just like when time traveling, if there's a way, be sure to take the credit.

There are a litany of nuances to being an NHL General Manager but, if you take a step back and look at the big picture, it all boils down to one thing: building a winner. However you do it is fine. Winning covers all manner of sins. That said, if you're presently not building a winner, the only way to cover this sin is to cloak it in past accomplishments and point to past winners you've built.

Problem is, this goes the other way, too. General Managers presiding over losers don't want to take the hit to their reputation, so they blame everything on the past regime. This has put Brian Burke, for example, in a bind. He can't point to the cup-winning Anaheim Ducks, an organization still blaming him for the lack of depth that has them mired in mediocrity. So, instead, he glosses over that and points to the Vancouver Canucks, who are currently winning.

Everyone rushes to take credit for a winning team. It's easy to do in the NHL's slot machine culture among GMs. Nobody gets to hold a position long enough to see it through to the big win, so, inevitably, someone will win with a team primarily constructed of other people's acquisitions. Consider that Dave Nonis, Brian Burke, Mike Gillis, Mike Keenan, and Mike Milbury can all take credit, in some manner, for Roberto Luongo. It hardly means a thing. The reality is that it's an insular, incestuous league, with over 30 general managers who probably played some part, however small, in the construction of the team that wins the cup. But only one GM gets the cup ring, and the rest are just posturing.

Opponents Try Harder

In case you missed the Canucks' shutout loss in Madison Square Garden, let me remind you of what transpired: the Rangers played out of their minds. They battened down the hatches, threw their bodies in front of every shot, finished checks, and battled all night to keep the Canucks to the outside. Then, when they won, they celebrated as though they'd just won the Battle for Middle Earth.

Now, I don't know much about the New York Rangers, but I feel I can safely assume that, when the Associated Press calls your performance "All Heart", it's an indication you don't always play like that.

People can tell you teams treat every team like any team, but we all know that's rubbish. Against the best, you don't play your game; you try to outplay their game. The Rangers were jacked up to face the Canucks, and they went all out to test themselves against the best team in the NHL. This is what happens when you play the best. You put everything you've got into stepping up your game in order to see if you can.

When you're good, every team treats you like a final exam. It can be exhausting. This is why great teams don't stay great for long, and why Detroit's generation-long dominance is so downright impressive. Year after year, the Red Wings have the hardest schedule in the NHL by virtue of simply being the Red Wings.

This is what the Canucks have had to deal with since they vaulted to the top of the NHL standings. Consistently meeting and dealing with the sudden level-up of every opponent is what separates great teams from elite teams. Now that the Canucks are on top, everybody wants to bring them back to earth, and it can be exhausting fighting off the downers. But elite teams are capable.

It remains to be seen if the Canucks are as well.

Wellwood's World, Chapter 8: Meet Me in San Jose

Let's be very clear: when we began closely following Kyle Wellwood's career, we had no idea it was going to be this interesting.

Well, maybe we did. Even on a slow day, Kyle Wellwood is impossibly interesting, but we genuinely expected the Wellwood's World feature to be a lame list of stats followed by a botched quote from a Russian interview.

It never quite got to that.

Before long, Wellwood was back to his old tricks, infuriating coaches, losing ice time, and being hockey's greatest source of pathos. Then suddenly he was released from his contract. Then his wife was pregnant. Then he was signed by St. Louis. Then he wasn't. Then he was again, and before he could join the Blues, San Jose plucked him off waivers. Seriously, when has Kyle Wellwood ever moved this fast?

That's right, you heard it here last. Kyle Wellwood is a San Jose Shark. In fact, in a remarkable twist of irony (appropriate for the highly-literate forward), Wellwood will be in the lineup for the Sharks tomorrow night as their third-line center, directly opposed to Manny Malhotra, the guy the Canucks desperately targeted to replace him. So, again: The Canucks let Kyle Wellwood walk in order to sign Manny Malhotra. The Sharks let Manny Malhotra walk and eventually wound up with Kyle Wellwood. Seriously, how bad does GM Doug Wilson look right now?

I'm also happy to report that the Kyle Wellwood quote machine is back in English, meaning we no longer need to get his brilliance translated from Russian before we are moved by it. Here he is, addressing the long-running fat jokes, from Working the Corners:

Wellwood brings with him that reputation for being overweight and out of condition when he reported to the Vancouver Canucks at the start of the 2008-09 season. Yes, that was a problem then, he acknowledges. No, it’s not a problem now.

“When I came to Vancouver, I came off waivers from Toronto and I had three groin surgeries and I had a broken leg over the summer,” he said. “When I got to camp, I wasn’t in good enough shape or like the rest of the guys.

“That was something I fixed and now I’ve been in great shape,” Wellwood continued. “I’ve been under 180 pounds so it’s kind of a running joke — you still get the fat jokes when you’re one of the lightest people in hockey. You just laugh and shake your head.”

Typical Wellwood. I'm not fat. I'm weak. Get it right.

The prodigal son has come home, and now he plays for the other team. This is gonna be awesome.

I Watched This Game: Canucks at Avalanche, January 18, 2011

Canucks 3 - 4 Avalanche (OT)

Give the Canucks credit for showing up to play this one. After a horrendous outing in Minnesota exposed their tired road legs, the excuses for a second consecutive poor performance were readymade. Instead, the Canucks vehemently defied the wishes of their bodies in Colorado, and kept up with the speedy Avalanche. They outshot the Avs 43 to 30 and picked up a well-earned point. It could have been two points, even, had the Canucks managed to push through their mental sluggishness the way they did their physical sluggishness.

Unfortunately for them, it was not so, and the mental mistakes came fast and furious. Bad penalties; bad passes; bad reads; lazy backchecks. Against a young, aggressive team like the Avalanche, that crap's not gonna fly. Although, by getting the regulation tie, I guess it sort of did. Hmm. Okay, it did, but then, in the end, it didn't (not unlike the Avro Arrow). Whatever. I watched this game:

• Likely, neither team will be completely happy with the way they played (the Canucks were slow and sloppy, and the Avalanche let a tired road team take the lead three times) but both teams will be happy to leave the stadium with points. (It's like sports day in grade school. Everybody gets a ribbon!) And the Canucks have to be pleased with their Temple of Doom performance, in which they reached inside of themselves and played their hearts out.

• The Canucks' power play covers all manner of sins sometimes. Both Edler and Ehrhoff blasted PP goals from the point that gave their team the lead, and these goals were vital. Had the Canucks had to open up and play from behind for even one second in this game, their suspect defensive play would have been even more prominent, and it could have gotten out of hand.

• It's been a long time since the Canucks have had a sexy callup like Sergei Shirokov, so it was nice to see him play a standout game in his first NHL action this year. He scored his first career goal on a beautiful move (above), and he had a game-high six shots. But, before you get excited, consider he's played two fewer games this month--and nine fewer NHL games. He had fresh legs. He was like Anne Bancroft on skates, his legs were so fresh. Let's wait to see whether or not he can be a standout when the rest of his team isn't playing on fumes, but he was a breath of fresh air last night. Most importantly, he looked capable of creating his own offense, something Kesler's wings have to be able to do. A good start for Shirok.

• The other callup, Chris Tanev, acquitted himself admirably as well. He finished the night a minus-1, but it's hard to fault him on the Luongo misplay that gave David Jones his first of two on the night. Jones was his man, for sure, but everyone in the building thought Luongo would swallow up that puck as it came off the boards. Other than that, Tanev was solid. He got on the ice for just under thirteen minutes, far more than anyone would have expected. He admirably broke up a 3-on-1 when Keith Ballard heeded Qris's advice to step it up, pranks-wise and decided to pull the old fall-down-so-the-rookie-has-to-fend-off-a-3-on-1 routine. Funny guy, that Ballard.

• Don't tell the Vancouver media I said this, but here's your proof that the star awards mean nothing: Alex Edler was named the game's third star. Clearly, someone didn't watch the game (probably John Garrett, who has made a living watching games, but always seems to be attending his first one). While it's true that Edler had a standout game offensively with a goal and an assist, he played one of his worst games of the season defensively. He constantly lost his man, he bobbled pucks at the blue line, he looked dreadfully slow. Despite finishing the game even in the plus/minus category, Edler was on the ice for two Colorado goals, both on the penalty kill, and both times he got absolutely embarrassed by David Jones in front of the net. Jones isn't a small guy, but Edler's bigger, and the fact that Edler allowed himself to get moved right out of the play twice is unacceptable. Watch the highlight package. Colorado goals one and four are mirror images of one another, as Jones simply shades Edler into the useless area, opening up the exact same cross-ice pass. On the first goal, you can find Edler at the side of the net when the pass comes across. On the fourth goal, that's him in the middle, lazily dropping down to block nothing, opening up the same pass and rendering himself helpless to prevent Jones from finding the rebound. A terrible game from #23.

• Kevin Bieksa, on the other hand, played solidly. Nearly every shift, he was breaking up an odd-man rush or clearing the zone before things got dangerous. He finished with 2 hits, 4 takeaways and 3 blocked shots, and considering these three stats are typically undercounted (especially when you play for the road team), that's one hell of a stat line.

• Keith Ballard had a decent game as well, but has anyone noticed how often this guy falls? He's like an ancient empire on skates. Methinks Keith "Babylon" Ballard needs to heed the words of the prophet Jeremiah.

• Is Adam Foote a diplomat's son? He's clearly got some sort of immunity. Foote's a handsy guy, but it doesn't seem to matter who he grabs, punches, or holds--there's never a call. He could grope the First Lady and someone would call it a smart, veteran play.

• The referees missed some egregious offenses, but Raffi Torres sure made it easy on them, huh? Both of his penalties were of the are-you-kidding-me variety, especially his second one. Who tugs on a jersey? Not since Theodore Tugboat have I seen such pathetic tugging. Skeeter and I observed that Raffi Torres has three modes: 1) skateskateskateskate 2) get puck, and 3) put puck. Unfortunately, none of the three modes is any more detailed than that, and Raffi often skimps on the details. Torres is playing some dumb hockey right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he suffers a benching in the near future.

• Speaking of penalties, Henrik Sedin's penalty in overtime was fully warranted. Granted, his man went down easy, but everyone knows there are a two situations where you should never stick your arm out. The first is when you're chasing to break up a two-on-one. The second is when you're on a school bus. That's how you lose a limb.

• A better performance by Roberto Luongo and the Canucks probably leave Denver with a win. He'll get no pass; he was the freshest Canuck and he should have played like it. When your star goaltender is rested and your team isn't, you need a star goaltending performance, and the Canucks didn't get it. The second and third goals are both ones he probably should have had. Know what else he should have had? A Bacon Mushroom Melt. It's only ever at Wendy's for a limited time, and it's delicious. But now it's gone, and who knows how long he'll have to wait for them to bring it back? /regret
  

• And finally, Jeff Tambellini was the fourth-line center last night, and while he did a fine job (especially in the faceoff circle, where he was 5-for-6) I'm not sure I like him and Mason Raymond on that line together. They're too tiny, and tiny on the fourth line is a bad idea, unless it's an ironic nickname for someone huge, like Tiny, the classic character from SNES's Clayfighter.